netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v2 2/4] net: dsa: mv88e6060: setup random mac address

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DD0097980@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:02:33 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     "'Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com'" <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>,
        "vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com" 
        <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel@...oirfairelinux.com" <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 2/4] net: dsa: mv88e6060: setup random mac
 address

From: Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com
> Sent: 13 October 2017 18:59
> > >> > +	REG_WRITE(REG_GLOBAL, GLOBAL_MAC_01, (addr[0] << 9) |
> > >> addr[1]);
> > >>
> > >> Is that supposed to be 9 ?
> > >
> > > Looks like it.
> > > Check
> > http://www.marvell.com/switching/assets/marvell_linkstreet_88E6060_data
> > sheet.pdf
> >
> > Hum, David is correct, there is a bug in the driver which needs to be
> > addressed first. MAC address bit 40 is addr[0] & 0x1, thus we must
> > shift byte 0 by 8 and mask it against 0xfe.
> >
> > I'll respin this serie including a fix for both net and net-next.
> 
> Yes, you are right. Missed description about bit 40.

Since they are all random numbers it doesn't matter.

Actually isn't this just masking off the non-unicast bit?
So it won't be set in the data - and so doesn't need masking.

	David